United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office
Volume:
United States of America v. Motion Picture Patents Company and others
Leaf #:
00069
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

(2) Coaster Brake case: United States v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 204 Fed., 107; decision by District Judge Hazel. This was a combination of manufacturers of coaster brakes who had licenses with one of the defendants quite similar in character to the licenses here under consideration. The decision was on demurrer to the indictment. The court, after citing the Bath Tub case, the Bement case, National Harrow v. Heneh, 83 Fed., 36 (see our main brief p. 28) and Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & Towne, 166 Fed., 557, overruled the indictment, saying, page 114: (114:) So here, as claimed by the Government, the license agreements were resorted to as a subterfuge to aid in stifling competition in trade and commerce, and to enhance the value of the respective businesses of the defendant, and to create a monopoly in their productions. The court, referring to the Bement case, said (p. 113) : * * * the intimation in the opinion is clear that the monopoly secured to the patentee by the issuance of a patent can not be designedly used to form a combination or conspiracy between manufacturers and dealers to accomplish a restraint of trade such as the antitrust act prohibits. 79466—15 5